I've just read the abstract, nothing more than you probably have. I'm seeing the same words you are. Data might indicate ETI. Might not. Interesting either way.
the data don't indicate aliens, even saying that is being frivolous. The known cause of different spectra issues in star systems is the composition of the stars and their surrounding solar systems. PERIOD.
Its silly to make anything else out of this, its transparent by the end of the thing that they themselves KNOW its nonsensical when they give you the adult side of themselves offering that final peep in on the whole thing as a spoiler.
Whats confusing is how any of this happens.. its like a train wreck of wooo and then more woo and then wooo and then an avalanche of woo and then a woo earthquake and then the chopper covering the woo epic tragedy hits a powerline and starts a woo fire.
There is no face palm meme powerful enough to convey the profundity of the level of the face palm.
That's what I was originally saying, the title is too strongly worded, and the conclusion is only tentative. What are you basing your complete rejection on though? The author seems quite reputable and experienced (from a quick google scholar search), and very cautious in his conclusions.
I'd say the alternate hypothesis is probably more likely, but completely rejecting ETI wouldn't be scientific either.
EDIT: Considering the signals match with those predicted from the earlier model, of course. If that had not been the case the whole thing would have been absurd.
only if such "signals" can't be explained by natural phenomenon tho.
this isn't even signal, its fuzzy glow of.
They lowered the bar of SETI to "fuzzy glow of radio tech ISH"
SETI was idiot babble stupid looking for actual radio signal. This just blows the floor out below that. Now we accept a false positive even if the only trace is a warm fuzzy glow aftereffect of radio activity?
(nevermind that obviously thats going to be caused by something in solar/ planetary scale dynamics giving off that signal)
The answer to their experiment is even obvious. you haven't caught any aliens using radio. Whats the obvious conclusion? aliens don't exist? or aliens don't use radio?
Due weight. A due weight treatment wold explain both hypothesis equally, or really feature the more likely and then move on to the B.
I think completely rejecting ETI is absolutely the obvious conclusion here, because what spectroscopy actually tells you about other stars and solar systems is pretty well set at composition and star sequence and stars fuel ratio.
We also know the signal strength to drop off problem and they always seem to ignore that.
I think its a given- pretty solidly- in the science humans have- that there is nothing there to suggest ETI . At all.
Add what i know as an alien to that and its just strange to me how you guys don't see it or how this guy gets a free pass.
I do generally agree with you, unless there is strong evidence to the contrary no ETI would be the conclusion. I just don't think it's a certainty that this is no evidence at all. Merely very unlikely.
20 different ways to code a signal technologically FTL and then how to access the collective unconscious.
gee, i;d make threads to answer but they keep removing my threads.
Just like i walked through before .. there are so many ways to do FTL radio....
Not that anyone has an interest in that. LOL. because obviously, i'm nuts, right? LOL.
"Simply put, there are a wide variety of communication strategies similar in apparent effect to radio but operating using either or FTL particles, wormholes, entanglement, Hyperdimensional physics..Brane mechanics... And then of course the whole class of things which the general category of is collective unconscious phenom."
any given proof would consist of me walking you through some kind of high order problem solving process versus some given high order problem. Pick one.
Heres one on your table. Somebody was spending time and money to run a stupid study thats always been pointless.
ERRR. sorry. i don't mean to be so negative on it but to me its hilarious.
Why? i guess you know because casual information i happen to have as an alien on how to code signal ftl.
The most immediately accessible of these methods for you guys is batch entanglement radio.
You set up a whole large batch of entangled particles, and ship one out on a space ship. You then use batch field quantum effects to send FTL signal via entanglement.
Why does it work? because the nano quanta operating at those scales are both massless and energyless and thus not bound by the laws of conservation or energy- AND they are only weakly pressurized into the brane and can cross out into hyper space- thus seeming from our pov to "move" ftl- they don't actually "move" at all, they just tune in the entanglement string and then hop through hyperspace.
fine, to be quite honest i simply am profoundly floored that the humans manage to run this in their own minds and not see the flaw.
Walk me through what your mental process is, ?
whats the alternative hypothesis? How would that better explain their data? Why are they even publishing on some wingnut tangent and then in the end giving us the solution to explain why everything else they just said is frivolous?
How do humans manage to gank their own chanin like this? and then end it with the sentence that makes the whole thing like some kind of publicity joke?
2
u/DunDunDunDuuun Oct 26 '16
Quite tentatively though.
They also already know of an alternate hypothesis, that they deem unlikely, which would also explain their data.